Summary

We offered an experimental graduate course built around a World Wide Web-based collaborative learning experience (FOR 692E, The Ecology and Economics of Clearcutting, Fall 1996). Five graduate students from NCSU and Duke participated. The World Wide Web served as the primary platform on which knowledge was compiled, shared, and synthesized. We built a WWW-based annotated bibliography and synthesized information from several disciplines. NetForum-based discussions included student responses to questions posed by the instructors and by other students.

Reactions to the use of the Web were mixed (see attached chart). The Web was valued most as a tool for information dispersal. As a result, students learned more from their peers than they had in other courses. However, students found brainstorming and "conversation" using NetForum, a list server, and electronic mail cumbersome and intimidating. Complex issues were brought to closure in several face-to-face meetings.

Participants noted a need for personal contact to develop the sense of community critical to fruitful collaboration. In future offerings, we envision an extended course that begins with community-building meetings (live or video) before migrating to intense Web-based collaboration. We will use Web-based conferencing technology for brainstorming and real-time interaction among participants. Institutions may have to increase flexibility in the timing and structure of courses to facilitate inter-institutional offerings.

Narrative

We offered an experimental graduate course, during the Fall 1996 semester. The objectives of this effort were 1) to evaluate the use of a World Wide Web-based literature review, synthesis, and discussion as a learning model, and 2) to establish a model for WWW-based distance learning.

Our vision was of a group of highly motivated and experienced Ph.D. students, drawn from multiple disciplines, working with us as peers in a Web-based collaborative learning effort. We enrolled a group of four enthusiastic, but inexperienced, Masters students and one Ph.D. student. Three of the students were from North Carolina State University and two were from Duke. We laid the groundwork for the course and made it plain that we intended to function as both peers and facilitators in an intensive, collaborative process of synthesizing existing scientific knowledge. The course moved through three phases: literature search and summarization, synthesis through analysis of a current issue, and design of research to fill knowledge gaps.

To evaluate the course, we conducted pre- and post-class surveys and focus groups, and administered our department's standard course evaluation. Through the surveys we collected information about experience with, and expectations for, Web-based learning, and reaction to the teaching techniques we used. Focus group sessions were conducted in our absence by Dr. Robert Serow.

Despite the obstacles we encountered, everyone involved regarded our efforts as a positive experience and emerged with a guarded optimistic about the future of Web-based collaborative learning. Many of the difficulties we encountered may be eliminated by reshaping expectations for Web-based interaction, using a judicious combination of personal and computer-mediated interactions, and by taking advantage of additional technologies.

Did we meet our objectives?

We were able to evaluate the use of a Web-based literature review, synthesis, and discussion as a learning model (see attached chart). Courses based on the concept of Web-based collaborative learning can almost certainly work, but we believe they must be built on the foundation of an established community. Unless the participants already know one another, some early portion of the course must be devoted to community building. During this part of the course, frequent face-to-face or video conference meetings will be needed. This requirement creates scheduling difficulties; meeting it will require intra- and inter-institutional organizational cooperation.

The Web was a wonderful tool for information dispersal - assignments, updates, bibliographic citations, and reports. The students learned more from their peers than they had in other courses, largely because of the ease with which information could be shared. Yet, most participated less in text-based Web discussion than they had in traditional discussion classes. The students found brainstorming and "conversation" using NetForum, a list server, and electronic mail cumbersome and intimidating. Not one person felt our approach would have succeeded without the five face-to-face meetings we held.

One of the most successful aspects of the course was a Web-based bibliographic entry system developed specifically for our use by the NCSU Libraries. This system allowed us to enter complete citation information and notes for all the literature we read, and to discover what everyone was learning as soon as citations were entered. With our guidance, staff members from the North Carolina State University Libraries are currently enhancing the software to include edit, search, and other capabilities. Once improved, this software has potential for wide application in collaborative research projects.

We were less successful in establishing a model for distance learning. As a distance learning model, the success of this approach depends critically on the participants' sense of community. One might argue that by scheduling face-to-face meetings we retreated to more familiar ground. We don't believe we could have forced the kind of interaction we sought on the Web by simply eliminating face-to-face meetings. Quite the opposite, we believe that people need time to get to know one another personally and to "buy in" before they will commit themselves to an intense, collaborative effort. The approach we took has great potential for success in extending the collaborative efforts of already established communities. For groups of strangers, however, early face-to-face meetings, or perhaps video conferences, are critical to establishing the sense of community needed for the kind of collaboration we sought.

Our original vision a group of highly motivated and experienced graduate students drawn from multiple disciplines, collaborating with us as peers use the Web's text- and image-based tools as the primary means of compiling, sharing, and synthesizing knowledge use text-based forums for brainstorming and "conversation" among participants bring stakeholders - representatives of organizations interested in our research - to our Web site to provide a variety of perspectives
Expectation, based on vision	What we learned (7 participants)
The Web will enhance collaboration and learning.	Yes and no. Valuable for sharing detailed, written information. Web-based bibliography was an excellent information sharing tool. Web could not replace face-to-face meetings. Participants needed personal contact to develop the sense of community critical to fruitful collaboration. Some felt that video technology might substitute for face-to-face meetings. NetForum was an unsatisfactory substitute for conversation. Participants became frustrated when they did not get quick responses to their postings. Some participants were intimidated by the prospect of posting their thoughts for all the world to see.
Participants will learn more from one another using a Web-based, collaborative approach.	Yes, but . . . Participants felt they learned more from their peers in this course than in other courses, largely because of the ease with which complex information can be shared using the Web. Personal interaction is needed to build a sense of community among participants before they will buy in to Web-based collaboration. Face-to-face interaction was more highly valued than Web interaction for bringing complex issues to closure.
The Web will enhance our ability to bringing diverse stakeholders to the table.	No. Some stakeholders agree to participate, but none did. Failure to participate attributed to lack of time and concern about voicing opinions on controversial and sensitive issues on an open Web site. Personal interaction is needed to build a sense of community before stakeholders will buy in to Web-based collaboration. Providing restricted access forums might increase stakeholder participation.
Our reshaped vision a group of highly motivated and experienced graduate students drawn from multiple disciplines, collaborating with us as peers first build community identity among participants through face-to-face meetings when possible, and Web-based conferencing technology if participants are scattered geographically migrate to Web interaction as participants become more comfortable with one another use the Web's text and image based tools for in-depth analyses and considered responses provide a mixture of secure and open forums to reduce intimidation and increase probability of stakeholder participation form teams in response to common interests, geographic proximity, and scheduling realities schedule progress meetings with individual students, either in person or using a video link